Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

doge

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 293
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 15:46

Relation...? :(
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your ... 2-percent/
Navy’s spike in aviation mishaps is the military’s worst, up 82 percent
By: Tara Copp   20 hours ago
U.S. Navy aviation mishaps involving the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet have jumped 108 percent over the past five years, according to data obtained by Military Times.

From fiscal years 2013 to 2017 the number of Super Hornet accidents rose from 45 to 94 per year. Those numbers were predominantly driven by Class C mishaps, which occur when aircraft damage costs between $50,000 and $500,000 or there are lost work days due to injury.

And it’s not just Super Hornets. Across the Navy’s entire aviation fleet, mishaps jumped 82 percent — mostly Class Cs — during the past five years, the biggest spike in accidents among all four services, according to mishap data provided by the Defense Department.

Image
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2018, 06:55

:devil: Allo Allo Allo - BOING! quality not assured. Blimey Guv. :doh: Bin goin' on for a long time 'twould appear.
Pentagon Cited Boeing Over Quality Concerns Going Back Years
16 Apr 2018 Anthony Capaccio

" - Problems include missing fastners on undelivered F/A-18 jets
" - Boeing says it’s working with watchdog to fix issues raised

Boeing Co. was cited by the Pentagon for continuing quality, management and other deficiencies first issued more than two years ago, including problems related to production of its flagship F/A-18 and F-15 jets, according to documents and officials.

Flaws at Boeing’s St. Louis aircraft production facility ranged from missing, backwards and out-of-specification fasteners found on undelivered F/A-18s and F-15s to oversized holes, missing components and incorrect parts installed on the factory’s production line, according to four “Corrective Action Requests” issued by the Pentagon’s contractor watchdog.

In other cases, planes under assembly inadvertently hit maintenance work stands or other equipment on the floor, damaging the aircraft, the Defense Contract Management Agency said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

Some of the issues remain unresolved after more than 904 days, according to records compiled by the agency. They included other programs at the company’s St. Charles, Missouri, facility as well as the St. Louis aircraft production line, the agency said....

...The two oldest outstanding cases with Boeing remain unresolved after more than 900 and 800 days, respectively. The oldest was issued because Boeing had an ineffective corrective system that “failed to prevent recurrence of” deficiencies “identified through multiple repeat ‘safety of flight’” flaws, or “non-conformances.”

The second-oldest unresolved alert was issued for what’s called “ineffective control” of material that didn’t meet specifications because of the company’s “departure from contractual requirements regarding the identification, control and disclosure of non-conforming material,” the agency said...."

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... back-years
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post18 Apr 2018, 03:09

lol... and they think that they could have done F-32 any better than the F-35... :doh:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post20 Apr 2018, 20:39

SpudmanWP wrote:lol... and they think that they could have done F-32 any better than the F-35... :doh:


I still don't understand how that thing made it out of the conceptual design stage...

Although if their MQ-25 concept is anything to go by they haven't lost their skill for designing fugly aircraft.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Apr 2018, 20:53

It made it due to it being the lowest risk concept. IIRC it did not make an earlier down-select but was added just because to the low risk of the direct exhaust lift system (ie same as Harrier).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post20 Apr 2018, 20:56

SpudmanWP wrote:It made it due to it being the lowest risk concept. IIRC it did not make an earlier down-select but was added just because to the low risk of the direct exhaust lift system (ie same as Harrier).


I meant internally at Boeing, not the downselect.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post21 Apr 2018, 01:15

IMO, the Boing MQ-25 entrant is downright beautiful compared to Monica.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Apr 2018, 10:54

NASA To Kick Off Study On Fighter Pilot Breathing
23 Apr 2018 Lara Seligman

"NASA is embarking on a new study of pilot breathing that will likely have implications for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force’s investigations into an alarming spike of hypoxia-like physiological events across their fighter and trainer fleets. The study will leverage a unique new sensor suite built by Cobham that monitors a pilot’s inhalation and exhalation in real-time, enabling for the first time the collection of critical data points about pilot physiology and the way humans interact with the flight environment.

NASA’s recently completed review of the Navy’s efforts to address these so-called PEs on their Boeing F/A-18s shed new light on a growing problem. While the Navy’s investigation largely has centered on finding a single mechanical cause, NASA concluded that it is the complex interaction of the human and aircraft system, dubbed the “man-machine interface,” that causes the events....

...“The idea is to begin to collect data on the human that has not been collected,” according to one NASA official, who said that the agency will use several NASA aircraft, including an F/A-18 and F-15, for the assessment. To support the study, NASA is procuring four units of Cobham’s VigilOx breathing sensor system, according to an April 18 notice posted on FedBizOpps. The pilot-worn sensor—which measures real-time breathing gas composition and flow, cockpit environment and pilot physiological data—recently flew three test flights on the Navy’s F/A-18 and T-45, but the services have been slow to adopt the technology.

VigilOx is made up of two separate modules, one on the inhale side and one on the exhale side, that monitor the air entering and leaving a pilot’s body. The sensors assess that air for changes in pressure, humidity, temperature, oxygen concentration, flow rate, carbon dioxide—anything that might cause dangerous, hypoxia-like symptoms such as headache, dizziness or disorientation during flight. Professionals can download the data post-flight and correlate it to reported PEs to identify trends.

In addition to the VigilOx units and operator’s instructions, Cobham will provide one day of in-person training for pilots, test engineers and instrumentation engineers at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, according to the Statement of Work The units must be capable of measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide percentage, gas flow and gas delivery pressure both on the inhale and the exhale, as well as cabin pressure, pilot acceleration and mask pressure, according to the document...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/nasa-ki ... -breathing
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Apr 2018, 06:44

TRUE to the title of this thread CNAF 'gets more & MOAR' it seems - if it all pans out with xtra cockpit thingos to boot.
HASC Subcommittee Marks Recommend Additional Navy Ship Buys, Multi-Year Aircraft Deals
25 Apr 2018 Megan Eckstein

"...Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
The Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee mark included language that authorizes a multi-year buy of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to support Navy plans to continue buying the aircraft into the next decade despite previously having planned to end procurement and potentially close the Boeing production line.

The Pentagon’s budget request includes $19 billion total for Navy and Marine Corps aircraft that included 24 Super Hornets, and the recently passed FY 2018 omnibus included $1.8 billion for 24 Super Hornets.

The TACAIR mark also includes several provisions related to the ongoing physiological episode challenges that have plagued both the Navy and Air Force. Those include adding a series of equipment to new Super Hornets cockpit altimeter, upgrading to a new onboard generation system (OBOGs), installing a cockpit altimeter and install automatic ground collision avoidance system.

The mark also included provisions for an annual report from the Secretary of the Navy on the status of Super Hornet upgrades starting in 2019...."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2018/04/25/hasc-s ... raft-deals
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Apr 2018, 10:35

:doh: People try to be accurate/helpful but NAVav seems to prove JUST TOO MUCH - but HEY youse have me to EXPLAIN :roll:
Six page PDF attached describes in detail the future mods to Super Hornets from AIR International May 2018 edition PDF.

A Ground Breaking Initiative Lon Nordeen AIR International May 2018 Vol.94 No.5

The article has a caption for this Photo below which is NOT correct. Capice. It is a 'Touch & Go' or 'ROLLER' but no bolter.
Caption: “An F/A-18E Super Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 31 (VFA-31) ‘Tomcatters’ performs a bolter on the flight deck of USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78). Dubbed bolter, the term means a touch and go, another high-energy, high-force and routine flight operation. MCS Ryan Carter/US Navy”

One may notice the HOOK is UP. This is NOT a BOLTER (which requires HOOK to be down but missing the wires).
Attachments
ShornetMODprogram AIR International May 2018 pp6.pdf
(1.09 MiB) Downloaded 327 times
RollerDescribedAsBOLTERhookUp.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

chucky2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 114
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2016, 20:27

Unread post26 Apr 2018, 20:13

spazsinbad wrote:TRUE to the title of this thread CNAF 'gets more & MOAR' it seems - if it all pans out with xtra cockpit thingos to boot.
HASC Subcommittee Marks Recommend Additional Navy Ship Buys, Multi-Year Aircraft Deals
25 Apr 2018 Megan Eckstein

"...Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
The Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee mark included language that authorizes a multi-year buy of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to support Navy plans to continue buying the aircraft into the next decade despite previously having planned to end procurement and potentially close the Boeing production line.

The Pentagon’s budget request includes $19 billion total for Navy and Marine Corps aircraft that included 24 Super Hornets, and the recently passed FY 2018 omnibus included $1.8 billion for 24 Super Hornets. <snip>


I guess I just don't get it. Yes, I know their aircraft are all beat up. Why cannot they order instead the same number of F-35C, get those F-35C sooner or at worst the same time as they'll get -18E/F, and then when the F-35C arrive in sufficient numbers, plop a squadron of them on a carrier, remove and distribute those displaced -18E/F's throughout the fleet? In the meantime, live with with the challenges you already have. DoD can tell LM to get the F-35C builds done first, and also tell the Navy they're taking them, IOT&E results be damned (just like the other two services have already done with -35A&B).

Just seems like Navy is dictating to taxpayer they're going to keep buying -18E/F for as long as they can until someone tells them 'no mas'.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Apr 2018, 01:10

Civvies really have a bee in their bonnet about OBOGS - it seems the USN/USAF were TARDY in addressing this issue....
Congress Wants Air Force, Navy to Solve Pilot Physical Episodes Now
26 Apr 2018 Oriana Pawlyk

"Both U.S. Navy and Air Force leadership may be required to present solutions, studies and proposed aircraft modifications in response to a rash of episodes in which pilots experience disorientation and other troubling physical symptoms while flying fighter aircraft, according to a proposal for next year's defense budget bill.

Lawmakers want the Navy to update its F/A-18 Hornet fleet with appropriate technology to help reduce the risk of dangerous, hypoxia-like symptoms, otherwise known as physiological episodes, according to the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee markup of the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

The subcommittee also wants to know how the service is progressing in addressing physiological episodes in its T-45 Goshawk trainer, and how the Air Force intends to investigate PEs on its T-6 Texan II trainer fleet and F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, and any other affected aircraft.

The provision would require detailed changes to the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet fleet. Lawmakers want the fighters to be hardwired with an automatic ground collision avoidance system; a replacement of the cockpit altimeter; an upgrade to the onboard oxygen generation system; and a redesign of the aircraft's "life support" systems, required to meet OBOGS input specification, the NDAA markup said.... [then more details]

...While both services have put into place instrumental and medical protocols to try to pinpoint the cause of the problems, the Navy may have made more progress in its search for solutions. For instance, the Navy fielded the Cobham-made CRU-123 solid-state oxygen monitor on the T-45 to alert aircrew if delivery pressure falls while recording system performance and faults. Similarly, the service has carried out test flights with a new sensor -- VigilOX, also made by Cobham -- to monitor cockpit and pilot data while in flight.

Meanwhile, there has been no root cause of incidents found among the Air Force's aircraft, according to officials. "We're not going to stop until we find it," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told lawmakers this week...." [rehash]

Source: https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/kiri/ZW1548A003S00
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post27 Apr 2018, 05:37

chucky2 wrote:I guess I just don't get it. Yes, I know their aircraft are all beat up. Why cannot they order instead the same number of F-35C, get those F-35C sooner or at worst the same time as they'll get -18E/F, and then when the F-35C arrive in sufficient numbers, plop a squadron of them on a carrier, remove and distribute those displaced -18E/F's throughout the fleet? In the meantime, live with with the challenges you already have. DoD can tell LM to get the F-35C builds done first, and also tell the Navy they're taking them, IOT&E results be damned (just like the other two services have already done with -35A&B).

Just seems like Navy is dictating to taxpayer they're going to keep buying -18E/F for as long as they can until someone tells them 'no mas'.


The F-35C option is not as easy as you make it out.

Lets look at the first F-35C fleet squadron, VFA-147 as an example. In April 2018 they cease to fly the F-18 and commence transition training on the F-35C. All of their aircraft are sent to other squadrons so that part works. After several years of transition and training, they will finally begin operational deployment in 2021, three years later. So they roughly spend 2 years transitioning to the F-35C, training all the maintainers, retraining pilots, etc. During that time, they normally would have made at least one deployment that someone else has to pick up. That is fairly easy to absorb if there is a couple squadrons per year, but if you increase to say five squadons per year, you have 10 squadrons missing deployments or thinking another way, 2.5CVWs are sidelined! Not a problem if you have spare CVWs, but you don't.

Beyond that, the throughput of the training world probably doesn't support that many people yet. You need experienced F-35C guys to become instructors to expand the training pipeline, but they haven't even been trained yet, let alone become experienced. Nor are there currently enough training jets or simulators.

Now none of this can't be resolved if you just have a few extra squadrons worth of people you can pull out of the fleet, but they don't exist and it takes years to either recruit and train them or lots of years if you are talking about pilots. Shoot, they are complaining about shortages now and increasing the transition just makes it worse. And, all of those bodies have to come from somewhere and those other communities, which are also short handed, don't want to give them up! The current transition is planned for, changing it will cause significant pain and suffering.

Now consider the impact of buying more F-18s. They arrive from the factory in a year or so and are immediately put to use enhancing the readiness of the force. No pilots to train, no maintainers to train, no schools to stand up, no impact on the fleet squadrons except less maintenance and higher readiness. It is like mana from heaven. That is not to say that the F-18 bubbas aren't the ones who caused the problem in the first place but that is why there is resistance to transitioning more squadrons to F-35C and the desire to get new F-18s.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post27 Apr 2018, 06:28

Actually, F-18s ordered today will arrive after F-35s that are ordered today.. by several months.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23315
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Apr 2018, 06:49

Thanks for explanation 'usnvo'. You have a NavAv perspective from within the USN that I could never have. What you write makes sense. The USN NavAv is in a bind of their own making & their way out is as you describe in several posts here now.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests